There is a question we are asked, gently, in almost every first conversation: what does an architect cost? It is the right question to ask, but the answer is rarely a single figure. What you are buying — and therefore what you are paying for — depends on the shape of the project, the scope of involvement, and the way a practice chooses to charge for its time.
The three ways fees are usually structured
Most Australian and New Zealand practices set their fees in one of three ways: as a percentage of the construction cost, as a fixed lump sum, or as an hourly rate. None of these is more honest than another. Each describes the same work, weighted differently.
A percentage fee scales with the build. For a residential project, that figure typically falls somewhere between eight and fifteen per cent of construction. New houses, with their long documentation phase, sit higher. Alterations, where the scope is constrained by existing fabric, sometimes sit higher still — the work is no smaller because the building is.
A lump sum is what most clients prefer once the brief is clear. It removes the math from the conversation and lets you plan against a number. We usually quote in lump sums after the first meeting, when we can see the project well enough to be honest about it.
An hourly rate tends to cover early-stage work — feasibility studies, planning advice, design exploration before there is a defined project. It is also useful for unscoped variations during a build.
What shapes the figure
Two projects with the same construction budget can carry very different fees. Complexity is the largest variable: a steeply sloped site, a heritage overlay, a difficult neighbour, an unusual structural system, a council that requires multiple amendments, a remote location that adds travel. None of this shows up in square-metre rates, but all of it shows up in the time a small studio spends on the work.
Scope is the second variable. Some clients ask for concept design only and use a separate firm for documentation. Others want full interior design, furniture selection, joinery detail, and a project architect on site through construction. The line between those two engagements can be the difference between a fee of three per cent and one of fifteen.
What you are actually paying for
It is easy to think of architectural fees as a cost on top of the build. They are better thought of as a part of the build that happens before any concrete is poured. A well-resolved set of documents reduces variations, anticipates problems before they arrive on site, and gives a builder a clear contract to tender against. The fee is, in real terms, the cost of removing risk and waste from the construction figure that follows it.
In our own practice, we keep the studio deliberately small so that the principal is involved at every meeting. That is its own kind of cost — we cannot run twelve concurrent projects — but it is also where most of the value sits. Architecture is not a deliverable that scales easily. It rewards close, unhurried attention.
A note on the first conversation
We do not charge for the first call. We use it to listen — to understand the site, the brief, and what success looks like for you — and to give an honest sense of whether the project fits the studio. From there, if it makes sense to continue, we provide a written fee proposal scoped to the work in front of us. There are no surprises after that point, and no charges before it.
That conversation costs nothing. It is also, in our experience, the cheapest hour you can spend before building anything.